• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Smokers need not apply

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,007
Location
Yokohama, Japan
The healthcare industry is one of few sectors of the economy that is still adding workers in the last decade. In fact it's the fastest growing sector.

picture.php


But increasingly it's an industry that is closed to smokers, even if they don't smoke on the job.

Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban

The new rules essentially treat cigarettes like an illegal narcotic. Applications now explicitly warn of “tobacco-free hiring,” job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine and new employees caught smoking face termination.
Click to expand...

As a non-smoker (ex-smoker) I favor rules that keep tobacco smoke out of my own personal space, but isn't this going a bit too far? Cigarettes are already taxed at a very high rate, which means smokers pay more taxes than nonsmokers. How far can the discrimination go before it becomes unreasonable?
 
I don't think that would be legal over here and yes it is going too far.

ETA: Just been checking and it may be legal over here quite surprised at that.
 
Last edited:
I work in healthcare, and my company hires smokers...but they have to pay more for their health insurance, and the only place on the premises they can smoke is inside their own cars, and they don't get extra breaks to do so.

I think it's silly to base hiring decisions on personal behavior like that. If they're doing it to weed out "bad" habits in their workforce, are they seeking out the heavy drinkers or those into risky sex? If they're doing it because they want healthier workers, are they not hiring the overweight? If they're doing it to keep costs down (insurance, time off, etc), are they not hiring those who have health issues or dependents? Whatever the logic behind the idea of not hiring smokers, it should be applied to other behaviors and characteristics as well, or else it is unfair.
 
I have a really sensitive nose and cannot bear cigarette smoke or the smell of stale cigarette smoke, but I too think this goes too far.

As long as it is legal, an employer should not dictate to an employee how he or she spends time outside of work. As long as you are willing and able to, and do, toe the company line when you are on the job (ie no smoking, no encouraging others to take it up, recommending to patients that they quit, etc) then you should be able to do whatever legal activity you like when you go home, even if it's stupid and bad for you.
 
This ties in with the thread questioning if it would be just as legal for an employer to only hire people who smoked.
It is, as far as I can see, just another way of demonising smokers and such discrimination would not be tolerated if it were any other group.
 
Lolly said:
I have a really sensitive nose and cannot bear cigarette smoke or the smell of stale cigarette smoke, but I too think this goes too far.

As long as it is legal, an employer should not dictate to an employee how he or she spends time outside of work. As long as you are willing and able to, and do, toe the company line when you are on the job (ie no smoking, no encouraging others to take it up, recommending to patients that they quit, etc) then you should be able to do whatever legal activity you like when you go home, even if it's stupid and bad for you.
Click to expand...

Smokers are cheaper to insure, smokers are absent more, they often take time away from work to smoke (depending on the company).

It's an economic decision. Why do you hate the free market?
 
I remember when I was a scuzzball teenager in need of cigarettes, my friend and I would go hang out outside the hospital near my house because doctors and surgeons were always getting paged back inside moments after lighting their cigarettes and we'd find almost a hundred barely smoked cigarettes in the sand ash trays outside the entrance.
 
Ok, maybe I am just a little slow, but how is it legal to deny employment for doing something in their out of work hours that is not against the law?
 
While smokers are more expensive to insure in the short run and medium run, in the long run, since smokers die sooner, don't people who live longer incur more medical expenses over their lifetimes?

For employers, that's irrelevant, but there is a cost to society through medicare, social security and such. Plus smokers pay the smoker tax. So, while smokers might cost their employers more money, they pay more in taxes and take less in government entitlements than non-smokers.
 
Also, smokers are entertaining to be around because you can tell when they're jonesing for a cigarette and getting antsy and irritable, and that's the perfect time to schedule an emergency meeting about their projects or a performance review, or invite them to explain to their boss's boss exactly what's going on with that vital issue they aren't aware of but should have been.
 
Emerson Street said:
Ok, maybe I am just a little slow, but how is it legal to deny employment for doing something in their out of work hours that is not against the law?
Click to expand...

In the US with Federal Equal Employment Opportunity laws, employers can't discriminate wrt national origin, religion, gender or age. They are free to discriminate on any other basis. If you don't like smokers or red heads or folk that support a particular football team - you can. It's always been he case.

Some interesting questions arise when for example the Hooter's chain restaurant can use a talent selection criteria but not an age or gender criteria.

While smokers are more expensive to insure in the short run and medium run, in the long run, since smokers die sooner, don't people who live longer incur more medical expenses over their lifetimes?
Click to expand...

Yes, and with smokers there is reportedly a net positive to society, according to some estimates. Many folks want to ignore the argument, but the CBO health-care estimates are that the cost of preventive health measures is not a net monetary saving - nearly neutral.
 
Last edited:
Emerson Street said:
Ok, maybe I am just a little slow, but how is it legal to deny employment for doing something in their out of work hours that is not against the law?
Click to expand...

Yes.

IANAL, but I think it has to do with "at will" employment:

Michigan also is an "at will" employment state. It also has employers that have adopted policies against hiring tobacco users, and improving wellness and financial issues certainly have played a part.
Click to expand...

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20110109/NEWS16/110109569/0/OPINION
 
Puppycow said:
As a non-smoker (ex-smoker) I favor rules that keep tobacco smoke out of my own personal space, but isn't this going a bit too far?
Click to expand...

I'm very much an anti-smoker, but yes, this is going way too far. I dislike smoking when it forces me to inhale other people's smoke. When that's not the case, people can smoke all they like and I don't care in the slightest.

I'd actually say the same for any drug, habit, belief, or whatever. As long as someone is competent and non-disruptive while at work, I don't give a damn what they get up to in their free time. They can spend every minute away from work as high as a kite, as long as they're sober while working it's none of my business. I think it's insane that employers are allowed to hire and fire people based on things that have absolutely nothing to do with their employment.
 
Cuddles said:
I'd actually say the same for any drug, habit, belief, or whatever. As long as someone is competent and non-disruptive while at work, I don't give a damn what they get up to in their free time. They can spend every minute away from work as high as a kite, as long as they're sober while working it's none of my business. I think it's insane that employers are allowed to hire and fire people based on things that have absolutely nothing to do with their employment.
Click to expand...

We had an issue at my work with one employee who was an alcoholic. She was actually drinking liquor at her desk all day. But when her manager started the motions to fire her for it, HR said that as long as the drinking wasn't affecting her work or creating a disruption, there was no justification. Especially funny since this is a notorious "at-will" state. The lady did end up getting fired eventually, but only because she stopped showing up to work at all.
 
i think it's going too far, although where i work smokers get more breaks. i used to sometimes make a phony gripe about this when i was a drinker - why can't i take a 5 minute break for a beer?

then i found out that i am allowed to carry a .04% BAC at work.
 
Puppycow said:
How far can the discrimination go before it becomes unreasonable?
Click to expand...
"Unreasonable" is a subjective thing to decide, but the Prime Minister of Finland once said in a press interview that all tobacco products could be banned "from the next generation", expressing an idea that the current generation of smokers can grow old with their habit, but smoking would be illegal for the rising new generation, until finally tobacco products are totally illegal in 50 years or so from now.

That is how far it can, and probably somewhere will, go.
 
Puppycow said:
While smokers are more expensive to insure in the short run and medium run, in the long run, since smokers die sooner, don't people who live longer incur more medical expenses over their lifetimes?.
Click to expand...
The major portion of the medical cost is related to the medical expenses in last years or months of your life not to how old you live. And lung cancer treatment is very expensive.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
"Unreasonable" is a subjective thing to decide, but the Prime Minister of Finland once said in a press interview that all tobacco products could be banned "from the next generation", expressing an idea that the current generation of smokers can grow old with their habit, but smoking would be illegal for the rising new generation, until finally tobacco products are totally illegal in 50 years or so from now.

That is how far it can, and probably somewhere will, go.
Click to expand...
And then what? What will Tobacco Control morph into next and set its eyes on for prohibition?

Lovers of alcohol, beware!

[rant alert on]Why do we allow interfering, sanctimonious busy-bodies to dictate how we live our lives? I'm naffin' sick of it! :mad: [rant alert off]
 
nimzov said:
The major portion of the medical cost is related to the medical expenses in last years or months of your life not to how old you live. And lung cancer treatment is very expensive.
Click to expand...
And we smokers pay extra tax to cover it. And then some. So what's the problem?

Note to add: I refer to the situation in UK, with universal health care paid for by the state out of our taxes, not the US system with private health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom